Continuation Part 5: Discussion of the Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito case

[anglolawyer]

Arson is not a petty crime.

 

[Machiavelli]

Cite Italian law, please. In the UK it is legal to carry a folding knife with a blade of less than 3 inches (7.5cm), and I think it implausible that this is not the case in other EU countries including Italy.


This is such obvious nonsense that it's a wonder to me you can type it without showing signs of mirth. Guede supposedly can't be arrested when found in a place he has no lawful reason to be, in possession of a knife he has no reasonable justification for having; yet a pocket knife is a pretext for arresting Raffaele when he has voluntarily come to the police station at the request of the police?

You are painting a picture of a police state, where the police can act entirely on their own whims without any restraint of law. Of course this is what this case has looked like from the beginning, to those of us without the bias towards Amanda and Raff's accusers displayed by you and the rest of the PGP.

You should stard doing your homework, instead of falsely claiming that I didn't cite things or asking for more, while spouting prejudice and not doing any honest reseach on your part; you may just start reading the newspaper article that I linked yesterday, just to start.

 

[Machiavelli]

Do magistrates arrest people who have committed crimes? Who physically arrests a criminal?

Arrest is a legal action, not a physical action. And there are several kinds of arrest.

 

[Machiavelli]

You should read my posts more carefully and be less selective in the ones you answer. Tell us about the lady's gold watch. What investigations were pursued? None, right? I guess arson is only taken seriously if you're caught lighting the match. Why were these matters not looked into after Guede was taken into custody for murder? Maybe because Rudy's burgeoning career as a burglar did not fit so well with Mignini's one black for another swap. Were any stories about Rudy's crimes leaked to the press by the police? I bet Grinder's yacht they weren't.

You are not going anywhere with these. If you talk about a gold watch, theft can be prosecuted on formal complaint by the victim, but attempted theft is not prosecutable.
Now, you need to make clear the argument you try to make; to distinguish clearly if you are claiming tha Guede should have been in prison since before and it is someone's fault that he was not, or if instead you are talking about considerations that (you think) should have been made subsequently to the murder by the Perugia authorities.
These are to separate topics.

Now about the considerations about Guede's previous burglaries, I agree with the Cassazione as they basically say that evidence that there was a staging of burglary (things such as the illogical point of entry, the physical evidence of multiple perpetrators and multiple modus operandi, evidence that someone was there some time after the murder, evidence of cleanup etc.) is far more improtant, cannot be ignored and "replaced" with consderations about Guede's habits. The alleged criminal records of Guede does not make evidence remotely equivalent to the evidence of staging.

 

[anglolawyer]

You are not going anywhere with these. If you talk about a gold watch, theft can be prosecuted on formal complaint by the victim, but attempted theft is not prosecutable.

What attempted theft are you talking about? A lady's gold watch was stolen from the apartment right above Guede's and he was found a few days later with a lady's gold watch. The apartment was severely damaged by fire (arson) and took three years to repair. That seems a case well worth investigating. I assume the old lady reported the matter to the police, why wouldn't she? Her insurers would probably require it in any event.

Now, you need to make clear the argument you try to make; to distinguish clearly if you are claiming tha Guede should have been in prison since before and it is someone's fault that he was not, or if instead you are talking about considerations that (you think) should have been made subsequently to the murder by the Perugia authorities.

I am taking issue with your argument that there was no reason to detain Guede after the Milan break-in since no serious crime was revealed. I say the stuff found on him implicated him in three burglaries, the theft of items from each place, arson and going equipped to steal. Even if the police were too busy or stupid to look at these before the murder, a properly-conducted enquiry would have taken them into account after his arrest and return from Germany since they provide much more important and relevant contextual material than Amanda's noise ticket, in which the Mignini took a close interest. I am suggesting there is a reason why Amanda's past was flagged up while Rudy's was minimised and that was down to the need to cover Mignini's fat ass after he made a chump of himself.

These are to separate topics.

Now about the considerations about Guede's previous burglaries, I agree with the Cassazione as they basically say that evidence that there was a staging of burglary (things such as the illogical point of entry, the physical evidence of multiple perpetrators and multiple modus operandi, evidence that someone was there some time after the murder, evidence of cleanup etc.) is far more improtant, cannot be ignored and "replaced" with consderations about Guede's habits. The alleged criminal records of Guede does not make evidence remotely equivalent to the evidence of staging.

Neither you nor Cassazione are thinking sufficiently osmotically. You can't just say this is more important than that unless the evidence of staging is conclusive, which it isn't and, by the way, if Cassazione says it is then Cassazione is delving into matters that are none of Cassazione's damn business.

 

[RoseMontague]

The results of a poll made by United Nations came out. The question was: "Please, tell us honestly what is your opinion about the abundance vs. scarcity of food in the rest of the world." The results were as follows:

• The Europeans did not understand what was meant by "scarcity."
• The Africans did not understand "abundance."
• The Americans asked the meaning of the "rest of the world."
• The Chinese, puzzled, asked for an explanation of "opinion."
• Meanwhile, in the Italian Parliament, they are still debating the meaning of "honestly."

http://www.lifeinitaly.com/flash/jokes.asp

Funny and true at the same time. LOL

 

[Grinder]

It would seem that being either Raf or Amanda looking at where to stage a break-in would think what so many PGP have posited: it is a difficult climb. While it has been shown to be possible for someone to make the climb and not that difficult for an athletic person like Rudi, no so much for others.

There is no hard evidence that it was staged. There is even less evidence that it was the kids who staged it. Sherlock might point out that there are no footprints luminol or visible going into the room from the inside of the house therefore no one entered from the inside.

I wonder if Rudi or someone else in the area had 2, 3, 4 or five burglaries in their history would that cause the police to look at that person?

While I can accept that Rudi didn't need to arrested for his various crimes, the nursery with a weapon would seem to be the exception, I still think they should have been considered once he was caught as the murderer.

The court saying that MO didn't fit because in this case he knew his victims, is totally bogus.

I still say that if anybody staged the break-in it was Rudi himself using the MO he was familiar with.

Anglo, you said something about Rudi having a cell a previous time as observed by his neighbor lady. I think that could have been the one from the lawyers office. No phone was reported in his backpack in Milan, but that could been because it was not stolen.

As for the arson, I still am curious why this isn't more widely covered. We may know why the police and prosecutors didn't dig into this but why didn't the press find it interesting?

 

[anglolawyer]

It would seem that being either Raf or Amanda looking at where to stage a break-in would think what so many PGP have posited: it is a difficult climb. While it has been shown to be possible for someone to make the climb and not that difficult for an athletic person like Rudi, no so much for others.

There is no hard evidence that it was staged. There is even less evidence that it was the kids who staged it. Sherlock might point out that there are no footprints luminol or visible going into the room from the inside of the house therefore no one entered from the inside.

I wonder if Rudi or someone else in the area had 2, 3, 4 or five burglaries in their history would that cause the police to look at that person?

While I can accept that Rudi didn't need to arrested for his various crimes, the nursery with a weapon would seem to be the exception, I still think they should have been considered once he was caught as the murderer.

The court saying that MO didn't fit because in this case he knew his victims, is totally bogus.

I still say that if anybody staged the break-in it was Rudi himself using the MO he was familiar with.

Anglo, you said something about Rudi having a cell a previous time as observed by his neighbor lady. I think that could have been the one from the lawyers office. No phone was reported in his backpack in Milan, but that could been because it was not stolen.
As for the arson, I still am curious why this isn't more widely covered. We may know why the police and prosecutors didn't dig into this but why didn't the press find it interesting?

Good point on the first highlighted sentence. As to the second, I thought the lawyer's phone was discovered in Milan. Could be wrong about that.

Was Rudy liable to be deported as an undesirable alien? I wonder whether that might explain why he went round to the lawyers' office to explain it wasn't he who burgled the place, a bizarre move that must have been motivated by something.

Both the law office burglar and the old lady's had something in common with Rudy the Milan school burglar and Rudy the lone wolf burglar. They all made themselves at home. Someone cooked a meal in the old lady's place, weird things were done at the law office: glass from the broken window was taken and neatly piled up in another room, pens and other things were neatly arranged on a lawyer's briefcase, almost like a child playing. Rudy went straight for the fridge in Via della Pergola and drank from a bottle (suggesting, imho, that he was not an invited and welcome guest but a burglar in an empty apartment).

His behaviour at the school was unnaturally calm and relaxed, his visit to the lawyers was weird, he was calm when confronting Tramontano (if it was him) in the middle of the night with a knife. The guy's friends reported strange behaviour. If I didn't know better I would say we may well have our murderer right here!

 

[Grinder]

Good point on the first highlighted sentence. As to the second, I thought the lawyer's phone was discovered in Milan. Could be wrong about that.

I think you're right about the phone. There was a printer stolen that he didn't have.

Was Rudy liable to be deported as an undesirable alien? I wonder whether that might explain why he went round to the lawyers' office to explain it wasn't he who burgled the place, a bizarre move that must have been motivated by something.

I could.

Both the law office burglar and the old lady's had something in common with Rudy the Milan school burglar and Rudy the lone wolf burglar. They all made themselves at home. Someone cooked a meal in the old lady's place, weird things were done at the law office: glass from the broken window was taken and neatly piled up in another room, pens and other things were neatly arranged on a lawyer's briefcase, almost like a child playing. Rudy went straight for the fridge in Via della Pergola and drank from a bottle (suggesting, imho, that he was not an invited and welcome guest but a burglar in an empty apartment).

Certainly behavior that fits with the Meredith murder.

His behaviour at the school was unnaturally calm and relaxed, his visit to the lawyers was weird, he was calm when confronting Tramontano (if it was him) in the middle of the night with a knife. The guy's friends reported strange behaviour. If I didn't know better I would say we may well have our murderer right here!

He could have been calm because he knew he couldn't be arrested under Italian law. If Mach is accurate about that it seems his discovery would only be an inconvenience.

Why would the nursery keep thousands in cash overnight in the office and how would Rudi stumble into finding the nursery at just the right time? Something fishy about that cash burglary.

 

[anglolawyer]

snip
Why would the nursery keep thousands in cash overnight in the office and how would Rudi stumble into finding the nursery at just the right time? Something fishy about that cash burglary.

This is the most tenuous one. With all the others we have something tying Rudy to the case but the first Milan school thing may just be a coincidence. Maybe it was the start of term and the parents had just paid the fees? In cash ... ? If so, I bet it was one of the mums or dads getting a refund.

 

[Dan O.]

This is the most tenuous one. With all the others we have something tying Rudy to the case but the first Milan school thing may just be a coincidence. Maybe it was the start of term and the parents had just paid the fees? In cash ... ? If so, I bet it was one of the mums or dads getting a refund.

But if you read the section Burleigh wrote about Rudy,there is quite a similarity in the preparation of a meal in both the earlier nursery breakin and the breaking at Rudy'a next-door neighbor.

Most of these details still appears to have a single source. Has anyone come up with any secondary sources that aren't repeating what Burleigh wrote?

 

[Kestrel]

Why would the nursery keep thousands in cash overnight in the office and how would Rudi stumble into finding the nursery at just the right time? Something fishy about that cash burglary.

Tax avoidance is considered a national sport in Italy. Small businesses like the nusery prefer to be paid in cash because it makes it easier to lie about income.

 

[Matthew Best]

Dishonesty is part of their culture!

 

[Chris_Halkides]

inside job?

Why would the nursery keep thousands in cash overnight in the office and how would Rudi stumble into finding the nursery at just the right time? Something fishy about that cash burglary.

IIRC Burleigh implied that there was a dicey employee who might have tipped Rudy off about the cash. I don't recall the details.

 

[Grinder]

But if you read the section Burleigh wrote about Rudy,there is quite a similarity in the preparation of a meal in both the earlier nursery breakin and the breaking at Rudy'a next-door neighbor.

Most of these details still appears to have a single source. Has anyone come up with any secondary sources that aren't repeating what Burleigh wrote?

Please let me know if you find more sources for this, the multiple trial testimony of Curatolo and neighbor's fire.

Tax avoidance is considered a national sport in Italy. Small businesses like the nusery prefer to be paid in cash because it makes it easier to lie about income.

Just like Patrick had no business until 10 pm on the register, I get it, but why leave thousands in the office? Do they deposit it in the bank or hide it under the mattress?

IIRC Burleigh implied that there was a dicey employee who might have tipped Rudy off about the cash. I don't recall the details.

How would Rudi have such a connection in Milan? Not impossible but unlikely. If this were true, one would think that the police or a least the media (cub reporter) would find this employee and check out the connection to Rudi.

I appreciate all here that are willing to dig for proof of certain assertions made by the PIP. This so distinguishes the people here from the people at .org etc. that will not only accept something like the prank based on one comment, but will expand it into a rape prank and speak of it as if proven.

 

[Mary_H]

<snip>Now about the considerations about Guede's previous burglaries, I agree with the Cassazione as they basically say that evidence that there was a staging of burglary (things such as the illogical point of entry, the physical evidence of multiple perpetrators and multiple modus operandi, evidence that someone was there some time after the murder, evidence of cleanup etc.) is far more improtant, cannot be ignored and "replaced" with consderations about Guede's habits. The alleged criminal records of Guede does not make evidence remotely equivalent to the evidence of staging.

I have never understood the thinking behind claiming a staging. Guede wouldn't stage a burglary to throw someone off his scent, because he left a trail a mile wide at the scene and then fled when no one pursueth. If he was ever in Filomena's room, it was before the murder, and there would be no thought to staging at that time.

It makes even less sense for Amanda and Raffaele to stage a burglary. According to the prosecution theory, they cleaned up all traces of themselves in Meredith's room, as well as elsewhere in the house, so why would they be worried about being caught? Moreover, why would they go to the trouble of cleaning every trace of themselves out of one end of the house only to potentially leave traces of themselves at the other end of the house? Not to mention that if they wanted to stage a burglary, it should have occurred to them to at least steal something in the process.

 

[MDDVS]

No, you still don't understand the law. You can't have a 48h fermo, just like that. When there is a fermo, a magistrate must be immediately called. Not after 48h. The law says "with no delay". The 48h is a maximum limit, not an option.
There is no charge - and there can't be a police bail - police simply doesn't have that powers, a magistrate won't issue a charge but a charge in any event has nothing to do with arrest; what you need is an issue of cautionary custody, which is simply not going to be agreed to by any judge on a possible charge of theft. Really, you have no chance. You don't have a clue of how things work. It's very funny this strange resisting to believe this legal truth, which is just obvious to any Italian.

Look, you may read a story from a local newspaper, about a man who was caught in flagrante while stealing a bicicle - helping himself with a large iron cutter - he was soptted by an assessor of the city government who called the police. Because called in flagrante, the public minister validated the police arrest. After a few hours he was free again. The following day he was caught again on stealing furhter two bicicles. Was he arrested? No. This time, not even for an hour. The police didn't see him in the exact moment while he was stealing them, so they only filed the minutes for possesssion of stolen items. He walked free, to stal other bicicles. The police called the immigrant office, who are those who can actually will handle the problem: they will expel him as an illegal immigrant, given that he is from Morocco. The forced expulsion is the "only legal procedure" capable of preventing him from stealing an indefinite number of bicicles.

http://lanuovaferrara.gelocal.it/cronaca/2013/06/25/news/il-bis-del-ladro-di-biciclette-appena-libero-ruba-ancora-1.7318425

I have never understood the thinking behind claiming a staging. Guede wouldn't stage a burglary to throw someone off his scent, because he left a trail a mile wide at the scene and then fled when no one pursueth. If he was ever in Filomena's room, it was before the murder, and there would be no thought to staging at that time.

It makes even less sense for Amanda and Raffaele to stage a burglary. According to the prosecution theory, they cleaned up all traces of themselves in Meredith's room, as well as elsewhere in the house, so why would they be worried about being caught? Moreover, why would they go to the trouble of cleaning every trace of themselves out of one end of the house only to potentially leave traces of themselves at the other end of the house? Not to mention that if they wanted to stage a burglary, it should have occurred to them to at least steal something in the process.

Yes, but by doing it the way they did it REALLY looks like it was Rudy and not them. So it was a smart plan. It's the same reason they left Rudy's traces after cleaning their own. They were really smart, staging the scene in such way that it looks like Rudy was the sole perpetrator.

It's similar to how Satan left fossils and loads of evidence that animals evolve over time, in such way that that's what appears to happen, to deceive people.

So we see that this also proves that Amanda and Raffaelle are satanic.

 

[Mary_H]

Yes, but by doing it the way they did it REALLY looks like it was Rudy and not them. So it was a smart plan. It's the same reason they left Rudy's traces after cleaning their own. They were really smart, staging the scene in such way that it looks like Rudy was the sole perpetrator.

It's similar to how Satan left fossils and loads of evidence that animals evolve over time, in such way that that's what appears to happen, to deceive people.

So we see that this also proves that Amanda and Raffaelle are satanic.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

employee at the nursery

Grinder, IIRC it was a female employee whose connection to Guede was either as a gf or possibly a drug connection. She left not long after. My recollection is hazy; therefore, don't take it as necessarily being accurate.

 

[MDDVS]

Now seriously. I can't understand how someone can call that window an "illogical" point of entry when:

- it takes much less than 1 min to climb
- the first floor window has bars

Of course you alsa have the balcony but I don't understand what makes the balcony a much better point of entry. They both look similar to me, and some people here take it even further, defending that the balcony is worse because of the street lights.

But at worst they're both similar, so I can't understand why it'd be called illogical. I'd understand if the first floor window didn't have bars, but not like this.